On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
> > While the technical discussion is very important, please also do not loose
> > site of the fact that it is not RIPEs role to act as a regulator. You
> > cannot restrict a companies (or individuals) ability to carry out normal
> > business because you think they are 'too small'.
>> what are you people smoking?
>> what is proposed is a NEW way of getting space in a specific case, not a
> restriction, but a very specific liberalization.
IMO, it should be noted more clearly in the draft (as pointed out before)
what the target group is.
If there is no prior policy, people will automatically consider something
new as _the_ policy, and start to forget that there might be other
options..
That is, so that 2 years down the road if you as an IX have address space
needs that can't be met with the proposed solution, won't
(necessarily/always) be met with "Sorry, this is how we allocate addresses
to IX's. Have a good day." because people forgot it was only supposed to
be _a_ way.
I'm not saying that that would happen, but opinions on what the policy was
all about might change in 6, 12, 18 or whatever months unless some kind of
"applicability statement" is added.
The last RIPE IPv6 allocation policy is from 1999. Who thought it would
last this long? Who knows how long the interim policy would be active?
It's better not to take chances.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords